When reflecting on the charity pitches that we have presented I see certain commonalities that exist between each pitch. First, I recognize that one may have chosen their charity because it resonated towards their personal beliefs/opinions, or as one might say “their criteria''. Secondly, because of the implications the organization has within a community. So, I’ve come to believe (and I think others can agree) that philanthropy can be both subjective and objective, but only by having a balance of both can we effectively be directed through the process of deciding between organizations.
With our recent reading assignments of discovering charity rating systems and learning what these systems are, I begin to wonder if they could lead us into being too objective when picking our finalist. As stated by Charity Navigator, “Ratings are given to all organizations that meet our criteria for an evaluation, irrespective of a charity's mission and without bias” (blog.charitynavigator.org). This seems rather ironic, they state that their ratings are objective (“without bias”), but these ratings are conducted according to their own criteria (which can be subjective). In the case of Charity Navigator, there may be criteria that they believe is crucial, that another may necessarily not agree with. Our site visits and presentations are quickly approaching and our second/final round of decisions will have to be made, but the way in which we get to this decision might differ from our first round of decisions. During our first round of applications we analyzed and voted for finalists from a large applicant pool and for some of us the knowledge of rating systems was mere. Personally, decisions I had made were based on criteria created by my group and I, which included: organization’s budget, core values, measure of effectiveness, transparency, urgency, and long-term vs short-term effects. My contribution to the criteria was based on knowledge I had learned in the classroom, not from the charity rating systems.
This knowledge some of us may have recently acquired can potentially alter our criteria in a beneficial manner, but I believe it's crucial to be reminded of our own original criteria. I agree that knowledge is power, however, in some cases we may get caught up by the different perspectives offered by these rating systems. Those like Charity Navigator claim to be objective, but in reality can be subjective. This is where I worry that some may become too “objective” in a process that is already subjective. How can we use our previous methods for decision making and tools like charity rating systems, to effectively measure what’s a “four star” organization? Should our original criteria be ignored or compromised because of the information these systems pose? How can we find a balance between subjectivity and objectivity as a whole?
Kassandra Moran
References:
The issue of objectivity vs. subjectivity has always been interesting to me. I always try to look from a more objective point of view when assessing a situation, but I must admit I am often guilty of letting my personal biases guide me towards a decision. In reading your assessment of Charity Navigator, it brought to mind how I used the program to narrow down my options for my charity pitch. While I knew the general field of work for my organization, I opted to only consider what the website deemed "four star organizations". While the organization I eventually selected did prove to have a favorable track record and a history of successful activism, but in retrospect I can see the unreliability in my selection process. I feel as if this kind of thinking can lull me into a false sense that I am considering things objectively, when I am really allowing myself to unconsciously inject subjectivity into my rationale.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI recently came up with the conclusion that there’s no such thing as objectivity. No human or entity, in my opinion, can make a judgement without being influenced by personal feelings. This is one of the major reasons why I chose to denounce every single charity watchdog organization in the United States. They are all subjective to some extent. Charity Navigator, for instance, allegedly takes a critical look at non-profit organizations’ Form 990. This watchdog then rates each of them with a list of “unbiased” criteria which they believe all non-profit organizations must abide by. This includes “spending a minimum percent of their yearly revenue on program and fundraising activities”. (https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=32) Obviously, this criterion was created by an individual or group of individuals who prioritize transparency and financial strength over impact. I’m pretty sure that not all donors prioritize the former over the latter. And, of course, not all donors would allow this rating site’s method of grading organizations to change how they perceive the organizations they would otherwise deem worthy of their donations. Objectivity, from my point of view, can be likened to aliens. It doesn’t exist—even though people think it does.
DeleteJust last week, three of our classmates eloquently presented in front of the class. When the time came to vote, I just steered at my screen thinking of who to pick among the three. Few seconds later, Bridgett asked of my decision. My answer was: “To be honest, I still haven’t chosen any; but I’ll most likely choose the international organization because of its connection with my home country”. Why? I don’t know. Just like me, many people around the world express their subjective attitudes when making similar decisions. We can’t and shouldn’t deny the fact that we are all governed by our subjective attitudes. Objectivity is just an illusion.
Hi Kassandra,
DeleteI really enjoyed reading your blog post! You brought up a point I was also thinking about while reading over the charity sites for last week’s class. Their ratings can be considered subjective because they are based on what those organizations deem to be important. I agree the charity rating sites are not necessarily objective, and that is why I feel the ratings from those websites should not be the sole source of information used to make a decision about where to donate. This is not to say that rating websites are useless by any means, they certainly provide pertinent information that is important to consider. But, at the end of the day everyone has their own values which should influence their choices more than a rating site.
I appreciate that this class started with a reflection paper about our core values because they continue to come up as a common theme throughout the course. When it comes time to make a decision about a final recipient, we must remember to stay true to our values as a class. With that said I don’t think that philanthropy should be objective and understand why the charity rating sites incorporate specific factors. Those organizations do so because they think it will help philanthropists with similar values decide where to direct their resources. Philanthropy should be about supporting a cause that is meaningful personally.